Yes. Value comes from load that can be shifted in time, not from a specific asset. A reservoir-to-reservoir transfer station with pump capacity and buffer in fill timing is often a simpler case than a treatment plant. No treatment constraint to work around, only levels and delivery requirements. Pumping and blower control alone can support a case, particularly where demand charges or a TOU tariff make peak avoidance valuable. Digestion/cogeneration adds another lever where present, but is not a precondition. See Tariff Optimisation.

Water and wastewater is where the current focus and plant-specific content sits. The underlying approach, simulating flexible or schedulable load against real price signals, applies to any industrial site with shiftable load: pumping, compression, refrigeration, batch processing. If you operate outside water, it is worth a conversation.

Often yes. The larger the electricity bill, the more scope there is for savings, and demand charges or TOU tariffs can make load shifting worthwhile even without large flexible assets. Process storage, effluent, sludge or biogas, whatever your plant has, is what gives the scheme headroom to push or defer load; the larger the storage, the further load can be shifted. Energy consumption varies dramatically between plants, but a WWTP around 10 ML/day or larger is often a good candidate. See How We Work.

No, it runs alongside one. Energy efficiency reduces how much energy a process uses; this changes when energy is used, not how much. The two are complementary and can run at the same time without conflict.

Historic data shows how the plant was actually operated, not what is achievable under a different control scheme. Retailers and generic flexibility providers can analyse the same historic load and bills, but that data alone doesn’t show how much of that load can safely be shifted; working that out takes the process engineering judgement of someone experienced in WWTP operations, not just data analysis. A simulation validated against your plant tests what would happen under price-responsive control instead, so the saving is quantified against what is actually possible. See Designed by simulation, not guesswork for how that validation works.

Cost and timeline scale with your plant’s size and complexity: how many assets need modelling and how quickly your data and operational input can be gathered. What you get is a quantified report: the saving available, its sensitivity to volatility or structure, and where relevant the case for further capacity, enough to take to a funding decision. Ask for a scope and quote against your specific plant.

No, if the scheme respects the operational limits it was built against, which is why limits are established with your operations team first, not assumed. Blower control against a DO setpoint, for example, operates only within the tolerance your process allows. The same applies to mechanical wear: turndown ratios and stop/start frequency limits are respected, so equipment isn’t cycled harder than it’s rated for. Manual override is retained at all times, and any implemented scheme sits within your existing control hierarchy. See where price is never allowed to win.

Often yes. Shifting load toward periods of high renewable generation makes better use of renewables already on the grid, reducing net emissions even without adding new generation on site. Where the study identifies a case for additional storage or generation, that benefit compounds. The report quantifies the emissions effect alongside the cost saving where relevant.

No. Integration, not replacement. Logic is built into your existing SCADA by an integrator to the same constraints validated in the assessment.

Addressed in implementation scoping and depends on your network architecture and how price/forecast data is brought into OT. Water is a designated critical infrastructure sector under the SOCI Act, so implementation is designed to meet your obligations in consultation with your IT/OT security team, not assumed on your behalf.

Checked in scoping against manufacturer terms and implementation method. Raised before any change rather than after.

The scheme is designed to fail back to your existing default operation. Price-responsive control is an overlay, not a replacement for the safety and process logic already built in.

The decision to take on spot exposure sits with your organisation; Delprosa quantifies what it could be worth, including sensitivity to volatility, so you choose with the full range visible before any decision. Volatility itself is shaped by opposing forces, more renewables and extreme weather push it up, more storage smooths it, so it is unlikely to disappear, and the value of being able to shift load is protected whichever force dominates.

The assessment compares value under your current retail tariff and, where you have appetite, a spot arrangement: so you see each before deciding. If you want to compare offers, the same plant model can be run against each proposed structure, including demand charges, TOU and network charges, to show what it is actually worth. See Alternate Tariffs.

Some sites operate under a network-imposed demand limit or embedded generation constraint; the model identifies how to operate within it while minimising cost impact, a related but distinct question to wholesale optimisation. Emerging charges, such as a proposed monthly peak export charge structured like a demand charge, are modelled as a scenario in the tariff and demand-charge model rather than after the fact. See Alternate Tariffs.

Yes. Tariff Optimisation finds savings entirely within your existing contract and tariff structure, no change to your retailer relationship or risk position required. It’s often the natural starting point precisely because nothing contractual needs to change. See Tariff Optimisation.

No. Demand Response, the only route that involves spot exposure, is entirely optional. Tariff Optimisation and Alternate Tariffs both deliver savings without any change to your risk position, and even where Demand Response is assessed, you decide whether to proceed only once the volatility sensitivity has been quantified.

Yes. A non-disclosure agreement can be put in place before any contract or tariff detail is shared.

The model is a first-principles physics model, not a black box: an ASM1-convention biological core (nitrification/denitrification, DO balance, temperature-dependent kinetics) built on decades of process design and plant operations experience. The full site, hydraulics, biology, storage and generation, is solved together on a sub-15-minute timestep, not in isolated pieces. It follows the validation discipline established by BSM1/BSM2, calibrated to your own SCADA history and tested on data held out from that calibration, so accuracy is checked against data the model never saw.

The core deliverable is the business case: plant assessment, simulation and report on whether load shifting is worth pursuing, and what it’s worth. What happens next, project-managed by Delprosa, handled internally, or a retailer negotiation you lead, depends on the route. See How We Work for both tracks in full.

A commissioned arrangement is not set and forget. See How We Work: Not set and forget for the ongoing service that keeps it performing as intended: measurement and verification, forecasting model recalibration, control health checks, tariff/market reviews and an annual business case refresh.